Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confrontés aux différents problèmes que pose la gestion des loisirs sportifs de nature, certains espaces protégés envisagent d’instaurer une gestion participative impliquant davantage les pratiquants et les différents acteurs. En s’appuyant sur une étude de cas réalisée dans le Parc naturel régional de Chartreuse (France), l’article interroge la manière dont les pratiquants ordinaires perçoivent une telle éventualité. L’étude des arguments développés par les simples pratiquants offre une représentation contrastée de la gestion participative. Une typologie dresse les différentes manières de concevoir l’action publique dans ce type d’espace, ainsi que le rôle que chaque citoyen accepterait d’y jouer. L’analyse montre que l’idée de gestion participative se heurte à diverses perceptions de l’anthropisation de l’espace et de la nature parfois « renaturalisée » par les usagers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".